An inconvenient truth -what Gore told Trump


There was a time when I couldn’t stand the WSJ. It was little more than a cheerleader rag which completely missed the financial crisis. No insight. Just group think. At the time I rather liked Reuters news as there was a modicum of balance by comparison. After Lehman collapsed I recall my buddy at Reuters lamenting his editorial team was going to be usurped by WSJ! It turns out WSJ ended up pinching a lot of Reuters staff  and it is paying dividends with common sense as we’ll soon see.

I always laughed at second tier investment banks who paid up massively for name value. “He’s from Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan.”  There was a kind of idea that management in these firms had such an inferiority complex that hiring the rejects from Wall St’s finest firms would close the gap. They’d champion the suggestions of these so called stars who were nothing without the product range and calibre of the decent brains. I always argued if clients want to deal with GS they’ll go straight to them rather than rush to a copycat wannabe. Don’t we have unique properties? One monster British bank I worked for had huge reach into bond and currency markets and interestingly shipping finance. It was value add that no other brokers had in house. It was an edge clients appreciated and paid for. So why spend millions on rejects that were fired from the top tier for that reason! No wonder the industry is hollowing out!

The media industry is no different. Look at NYT’s earnings dwindle as customers get sick of their one eyed liberal bias which has caused them to cut prices in half to flog more subs to use as bargaining chips for falling ad revenue. The formula is backward. Write good content and people will flock at full price and advertising dollars will compete for space.

So to the Gore told Trump article in WSJ:

“During the decades we’ve been waiting for actual climate data to validate or invalidate our climate models (we’re still waiting), at least one phenomenon has been reliably observed. This is the political domestication and co-optation of the once-vexing global warming hypothesis.

A pioneering shaman of this transmutation was BP CEO John Browne, who in the 1990s declared his company “beyond petroleum,” then proceeded on a series of mergers that made it an even bigger petroleum company. GE, Ford, DuPont and others quickly lined up behind a U.S. cap-and-trade bill. There can be something for everybody in treating carbon dioxide as a problem, they realized. That is, as long as nobody is so crazy (wink, wink) as to actually try to slow down materially the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere.

Which brings us to President-elect Trump’s meeting this week with Al Gore.

Details weren’t released but we can be pretty sure of the message Mr. Gore delivered. It’s the message he’s been delivering since President Obama’s election in 2008: Climate change no longer requires any painful root-canal actions. No need for unpopular energy taxes or giving up our energy-rich lifestyles.

The problem can be solved with handouts to the green energy lobby. Who doesn’t like distributing handouts?

A credulous piece in the New York Times tells us Elon Musk makes a “compelling case” that Tesla would be better off without federal subsidies yet the paper doesn’t tell us what the case is. Here it is: Mr. Musk would certainly be better off without federal fuel-mileage mandates that cause his competitors to make and dump electric cars on the market at a $9,000 loss. But those rules aren’t going away even under President Trump. And there is no sign Mr. Musk is eager to do without his own subsidies. He was last seen berating the California Air Resources Board for failing to create enough “zero-emission” credits to suit Tesla.

A new study from Arthur D. Little finds that, over its lifecycle, an electric car will generate just 23% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a gasoline-powered car. If every car on earth were electric, this translates into a mere 1.8% decline in total emissions.

Yet even a small electric car will cost its owner $20,816 more to own and operate than a comparable gas-powered car, and its total “human toxicity”—mainly due to heavy metals and graphite—will be three to five times greater.

Thank you WSJ. Subscription at full price for reporting sense without hysteria. NYT/WaPo – are you listening or did you forget the password to exit your echo chamber?

One comment

  1. Great article 


    James Newman

    This e-mail is only intended for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. Unless stated to the contrary, any opinions or comments are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of the company. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Any person communicating with us by e-mail will be deemed to have accepted the risks associated with sending information by e-mail being interception, amendment and loss, and also the consequences of incomplete or late delivery. Thank you for your cooperation.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s